Nathan Beyer wrote: > I'm all for it, especially if Doug is okay with it.
I can certainly say that Doug would prefer it. > I made an attempt at > using the code a week back and it should be fairly easy to get the majority > of it in. The missing piece would be a VMI API for the atomic and lock > functionality. Maybe Tim/George/Mark/Oliver can give us a hint ;) It would be nice for J9 to continue to work. > > Would we be using the latest version from HEAD, or is there a tag we should > begin with? The latest code seems to have some Java 6 classes. Would we > leave them out for now, or just leave them in? There probably is a tag for the latest Java 5 version, and I'd leave them out to limit confusion (and so we can use the same version that Sun/IBM/BEA is using) but I don't feel strongly at all about this. geir > > -Nathan > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 10:29 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [classlib] proposal - resolution to java.util.concurrent issue >> >> I had a nice chat with Doug today to try to reach a conclusion regarding >> j.u.c >> >> Given that everyone else (Sun, IBM, BEA...) seems to use j.u.c, found here >> >> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi- >> bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/ >> >> I think that we'd be well-served to do so as well. It's the RI, it's >> complicated, it goes w/o saying that Doug is committed to this being >> right, and I'd like to have the same bugs as everyone else for now :) >> >> The summary of what I think we should do is simple - we take the code >> from j.u.c from the above link (w/ 1 exception) into our SVN repo and >> track any changes made by Doug and the jsr166 EG going forward. >> >> All the code is under the following terms, which are acceptable to the ASF >> : >> >> /* >> * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166 >> * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at >> * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain >> */ >> >> except for one file : >> >> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/cgi- >> bin/viewcvs.cgi/jsr166/src/main/java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList. >> java >> >> for which I understand we can get a clean replacement from the backport. >> >> Now, there is an issue of our clean-room rules, and I think there's a >> very neat solution that would allow us to use this code w/o getting an >> ACQ from the authors of j.u.c (which Doug claims is himself, assisted by >> the JSR166 EG) >> >> The premise of our ACQ structure is that we want to ensure that people >> who have worked on a non-open/non-free implementation of a >> portion/module/component of Java not work on our implementation of that >> portion/module/component. >> >> Now, given that j.u.c in Java SE 5 is the first time this functionality >> has existed, it must be the case that the contributors are not >> contaminated by working on another implementation, since there are no >> other implementations. We can't be contaminated because there's nothing >> with which to contaminate us with. >> >> Of course, this needs VM support, so there is work to do, but this seems >> like a sane and clean way to add this functionality to Harmony classlib, >> as well as build a bridge to another part of the Java SE ecosystem. >> >> Comments? Things that I missed? >> >> geir >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
